There was no option to vote no on both. You vote for "Russia now" or "Russia later." The only other option was not to vote. Counting that as a valid option to choose the status quo is absurd.
For an abortion example, imagine the religious right-wing legislature in a US state got two options on the ballot, "Make abortion illegal" and "Allow the legislature to decide whether abortion is illegal." Any vote by the people is simply a rubber stamp of what the legislature has already decided -- making abortion illegal. There is no option to disagree with the legislature and keep abortion legal.
These days we're used to the Apple hype about design, but that's just consumer goods. In some cases, good design means lives saved. Bad design, or even decent design with unintended consequences, can be dangerous.
A former F-111 pilot told me that there were some controls to the right of the pilot's seat (radio IIRC). These worked just fine during flight and were well-designed in themselves, but eventually some unexplained crashes due to pilot error led investigators to these controls. Turns out if a pilot turned his head to use these controls at the same time he was performing a certain flight maneuver, it would screw up his inner ear, he would lose his sense of orientation, and possibly crash the plane.
It wasn't necessarily bad design, but it is a reminder that we can't anticipate all of the consequences of any one design when dealing with people. The important part is that when we identify an unintended consequence of a design, we change the design to compensate instead of blaming user stupidity.
choices seem pretty valid. the second one was "remain part of ukraine"
That is disengenuous and will only fool those who don't know what's going on. The two options were:
"Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
"Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
The latter establishes an independent state technically within Crimea, but with autonomy to later join Russia if it wishes, and the parliament already said it does.
So, basically, the options were "Join Russia now, or join later." There was no option to remain as part of Ukraine under the status quo.
Groklaw had the best journalistic coverage in the world of the SCO v. IBM case, but it's "just" a blog. There's no fine line where a blog stops being "what I feel" and reports hard news. Take MSNBC, it's 85% commentary, yet still considered news, and their standards, such as using facts and verifying things, aren't that high.
They have to aggressively protect their trademark, or they risk losing it. If they accept and allow 2,000 more, the next guy can come along and say their shipment of 2,000 doesn't do harm to Fluke, see they allowed SparkFun to do it. Fluke needs these cheap knock-offs out of circulation.
Used to be that you trademarked your logo and your model-name. But trademarking your colors, shapes, etc. is ridiculous.
Color has been a possible part of trademark for a long time. Trademarks are not "intellectual property." It is consumer protection law, meant to prevent knock-off products from looking too much like the desired products. Hey, my friend had this awesome multimiter, and this $15 one in front of me looks like it. I think I'll get it. The cheap multimeter caused confusion in the market, and a customer got ripped off.
In that a company's reputation can be conveyed through a trademark makes that trademark valuable, and anything of value can be sold, so people call it "property."
How is this different from Toyota AND Honda selling yellow cars?
Color isn't a defining characteristic of your average model of car. Shape is, and manufacturers get design patents for their car designs all the time.
Some Hispanic gangs are trying to cleanse their communities of blacks by terrorizing them. Check out the Azusa 13. No love there just because they are both minorities in the US.
It's not the Republicans, it's just that legislatures often don't get around to symbolically fixing old, unenforceable laws. These covenants are common throught the historically Democrat-run South. They didn't bother to outlaw them, and the recent trend of Republican majorities hasn't bothered either.
In my IT office there are four black guys, an asian girl, one black woman, and maybe 20 whites (more men than women). OTOH, many of our people come from a military background where intelligence, education and hard work is promoted, so we kind of have a pre-filter for the "thug lifestyle" types.
You don't see many white, Asian, or Latino sprinter winning gold medals. Is the 100 meter dash similarly biased?
To apply the logic equally, whites should get a 95-meter dash, Asians a 90-meter dash, but they should count as 100. Now everybody's equal, right Harrison?
This is for people whom society has deemed beyond correction. They should never be allowed to reenter society, so we must decide what to do with them. The only logical sentences in this case are life imprisonment without parole, or death.
Is your argument that the government does not deserve those taxes and they shouldn't be paid
The argument is that the government already took its taxes one or more times out of the same money during the life of the person, paying for all the services that person received. The government doesn't deserve yet another chunk of that person's already-taxed money just because he died.
Yeah Russia did such a great job, stalling for years while supporting a dictator actively killing his own citizens until they were able to fall into a solution based on an off-hand remark describing a completely unrealistic scenario.
We tried the "support a dictator" method in that region, but we just ended up invading anyway.
Kids, pay for college, as in they're grown up now. Maybe that money could have been used to set one up in a business, pay for college, whatever, to give them a better life. Instead it goes into savings. But you'd think if dad dies, the kids still get the money, maybe goes to help the grandkids instead. But nope, the government wants to take yet another tax chop off of someone's earnings.
How so? They aren't losing anything out of their own pockets, and they certainly aren't losing anything they earned.
So the government earned it? I don't think so. The person already paid income taxes on the money (tax-deferred is another case), property taxes on any property, sales taxes on cars and boats. The government already got its share.
As for the kids, that is money that could have gone to give the kids a better childhood or pay for college. Instead, dad saved it for retirement. But he died before he could retire, so now the government gets it instead of him or the kids. It's sick.
Slashdot Mirror
There was no option to vote no on both. You vote for "Russia now" or "Russia later." The only other option was not to vote. Counting that as a valid option to choose the status quo is absurd.
For an abortion example, imagine the religious right-wing legislature in a US state got two options on the ballot, "Make abortion illegal" and "Allow the legislature to decide whether abortion is illegal." Any vote by the people is simply a rubber stamp of what the legislature has already decided -- making abortion illegal. There is no option to disagree with the legislature and keep abortion legal.
Fluke has these two live trademarks concerning the design and color of their devices: 85449701, 85449725.
As long as the color similarity could cause confusion in the market, it's close enough.
These days we're used to the Apple hype about design, but that's just consumer goods. In some cases, good design means lives saved. Bad design, or even decent design with unintended consequences, can be dangerous.
A former F-111 pilot told me that there were some controls to the right of the pilot's seat (radio IIRC). These worked just fine during flight and were well-designed in themselves, but eventually some unexplained crashes due to pilot error led investigators to these controls. Turns out if a pilot turned his head to use these controls at the same time he was performing a certain flight maneuver, it would screw up his inner ear, he would lose his sense of orientation, and possibly crash the plane.
It wasn't necessarily bad design, but it is a reminder that we can't anticipate all of the consequences of any one design when dealing with people. The important part is that when we identify an unintended consequence of a design, we change the design to compensate instead of blaming user stupidity.
That is disengenuous and will only fool those who don't know what's going on. The two options were:
"Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
"Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
The latter establishes an independent state technically within Crimea, but with autonomy to later join Russia if it wishes, and the parliament already said it does.
So, basically, the options were "Join Russia now, or join later." There was no option to remain as part of Ukraine under the status quo.
Groklaw had the best journalistic coverage in the world of the SCO v. IBM case, but it's "just" a blog. There's no fine line where a blog stops being "what I feel" and reports hard news. Take MSNBC, it's 85% commentary, yet still considered news, and their standards, such as using facts and verifying things, aren't that high.
Tell me when you can get arrested in the US for reminding your people of a well-known US historical event, and you will start having equivalence.
They have to aggressively protect their trademark, or they risk losing it. If they accept and allow 2,000 more, the next guy can come along and say their shipment of 2,000 doesn't do harm to Fluke, see they allowed SparkFun to do it. Fluke needs these cheap knock-offs out of circulation.
Color has been a possible part of trademark for a long time. Trademarks are not "intellectual property." It is consumer protection law, meant to prevent knock-off products from looking too much like the desired products. Hey, my friend had this awesome multimiter, and this $15 one in front of me looks like it. I think I'll get it. The cheap multimeter caused confusion in the market, and a customer got ripped off.
In that a company's reputation can be conveyed through a trademark makes that trademark valuable, and anything of value can be sold, so people call it "property."
Color isn't a defining characteristic of your average model of car. Shape is, and manufacturers get design patents for their car designs all the time.
Hold an iPhone maybe three inches from your eyes. That's about 90 degrees. It's not enough for VR. It would be like running around with blinders on.
He expects the companies to make a promise to improve diversity and then donate generously to his bank account as a sort of modern-day indulgence.
Some Hispanic gangs are trying to cleanse their communities of blacks by terrorizing them. Check out the Azusa 13. No love there just because they are both minorities in the US.
It's not the Republicans, it's just that legislatures often don't get around to symbolically fixing old, unenforceable laws. These covenants are common throught the historically Democrat-run South. They didn't bother to outlaw them, and the recent trend of Republican majorities hasn't bothered either.
In my IT office there are four black guys, an asian girl, one black woman, and maybe 20 whites (more men than women). OTOH, many of our people come from a military background where intelligence, education and hard work is promoted, so we kind of have a pre-filter for the "thug lifestyle" types.
To apply the logic equally, whites should get a 95-meter dash, Asians a 90-meter dash, but they should count as 100. Now everybody's equal, right Harrison?
You mean actually encourage black family cohesion and work to instill a culture where academic excellence is widely respected instead of derided?
That sounds too much like work. Let's blame whitey!
This is for people whom society has deemed beyond correction. They should never be allowed to reenter society, so we must decide what to do with them. The only logical sentences in this case are life imprisonment without parole, or death.
What the author proposes is just sick.
The race card has been played.
The argument is that the government already took its taxes one or more times out of the same money during the life of the person, paying for all the services that person received. The government doesn't deserve yet another chunk of that person's already-taxed money just because he died.
You seem to think the deceased never paid taxes in his entire life.
We tried the "support a dictator" method in that region, but we just ended up invading anyway.
"Yes we can," "Change we can believe in," "Common sense gun laws," "Most transparent administration"
Very true. This is why Obama just wanted to bomb Syria instead of looking for a more peaceful resolution like Putin did.
No, they are taken out before any transfer of the estate, based on the gross value of the estate at that time. The kids get the leftovers.
So you are saying that losing 100% of dad's life work is preferable to losing just a large chunk of it to the government?
Kids, pay for college, as in they're grown up now. Maybe that money could have been used to set one up in a business, pay for college, whatever, to give them a better life. Instead it goes into savings. But you'd think if dad dies, the kids still get the money, maybe goes to help the grandkids instead. But nope, the government wants to take yet another tax chop off of someone's earnings.
So the government earned it? I don't think so. The person already paid income taxes on the money (tax-deferred is another case), property taxes on any property, sales taxes on cars and boats. The government already got its share.
As for the kids, that is money that could have gone to give the kids a better childhood or pay for college. Instead, dad saved it for retirement. But he died before he could retire, so now the government gets it instead of him or the kids. It's sick.